PART 1: CNN Director ADMITS Network Engaged in ‘Propaganda’ to Remove Trump from Presidency … ‘Our Focus Was to Get Trump Out of Office’ … ‘I Came to CNN Because I Wanted to Be a Part of That’

[Dashinka 24,732]

26 minutes ago, laylalex said:

I have to say I admire your refusal to back down on your point that this guy knows what's what at CNN.  I mean, that is pretty consistent but Emerson had some strong words about that.

And I admire your ability to actually know what this guy knows.

[laylalex 7,300]

1 minute ago, Dashinka said:

And I admire your ability to actually know what this guy knows.

Do you?

 

I never said I know what he knows. What I said was the probability that he knows what is happening at the strategy level is low given his role. I have said that I have come to this conclusion by speaking with people (not just my sister now, but a friend who works in TV production) about what a guy who does his job would likely know. I drew conclusions. You drew conclusions too, but they are (correct me if I am wrong) based on what the media is telling you is true, and your own experience in fields that are not television production. 

 

Our conclusions are not the same. Perhaps you are right, or not, and perhaps I am right, or not. I think you are correct that a better way of looking at whether what Chester said is true is to look at what is before our eyes -- the reporting itself. And again, we can draw our own conclusions.  

[Dashinka 24,732]

13 minutes ago, laylalex said:

Do you?

 

I never said I know what he knows. What I said was the probability that he knows what is happening at the strategy level is low given his role. I have said that I have come to this conclusion by speaking with people (not just my sister now, but a friend who works in TV production) about what a guy who does his job would likely know. I drew conclusions. You drew conclusions too, but they are (correct me if I am wrong) based on what the media is telling you is true, and your own experience in fields that are not television production. 

 

Our conclusions are not the same. Perhaps you are right, or not, and perhaps I am right, or not. I think you are correct that a better way of looking at whether what Chester said is true is to look at what is before our eyes -- the reporting itself. And again, we can draw our own conclusions.  

Yes of course, drawing conclusions to fit a narrative.  I believe that is called confirmation bias, but whatever.  Sure, all those MSM entities only give us the straight news with multiple sources and no editorializing even on the news pages.  Life is a full of unicorns and leprechauns as well. 

[laylalex 7,300]

Please don't put words in my mouth. I never said that, and in fact I was agreeing with you that there are narratives that are being spun by the media as a whole. It is not the mainstream media that are the only parties that are guilty of this -- I think the danger comes in when people start saying "the MSM is slanted" which implies that sources outside the mainstream media are somehow more reliable. This quite patently isn't the case. All sources should be weighed and considered according to reliability (which doesn't mean only past reliability of the source). I read widely on topics because of bias -- reading widely tends to filter out the noise. And there is an awful lot of noise.

[Dashinka 24,732]

4 minutes ago, laylalex said:

Please don't put words in my mouth. I never said that, and in fact I was agreeing with you that there are narratives that are being spun by the media as a whole. It is not the mainstream media that are the only parties that are guilty of this -- I think the danger comes in when people start saying "the MSM is slanted" which implies that sources outside the mainstream media are somehow more reliable. This quite patently isn't the case. All sources should be weighed and considered according to reliability (which doesn't mean only past reliability of the source). I read widely on topics because of bias -- reading widely tends to filter out the noise. And there is an awful lot of noise.

I believe I said that, but yet it is only PV that is called out for their political bias.  Relying on the ####### coming out of the NYTimes, CNN, etc. is just as bad as PV.

[laylalex 7,300]

Did I say I rely on the NYT or CNN out of hand? No. They make mistakes, and sometimes they correct them promptly, sometimes belatedly, and sometimes not at all. What is important is whether the claims in the articles can be substantiated. This is why you hear NBC saying things like "we have independently verified the allegations made in the Post's reporting" or USA Today saying "USA Today has not been able to verify the claims made in the AP report." You want more than one source. Look to the sources -- do they line up? What are the differences? Are those differences important or trivial? Is a story developing and subject to change? Lots of questions to ask, and it's always good to ask lots of questions of what you consume as media.

[Nitas_man 3,100]

On 4/15/2021 at 6:53 AM, Dashinka said:

MSM at its best.

 

PART 1: CNN Director ADMITS Network Engaged in ‘Propaganda’ to Remove Trump from Presidency … ‘Our Focus Was to Get Trump Out of Office’ … ‘I Came to CNN Because I Wanted to Be a Part of That’

 

[NEW YORK -- Apr. 13, 2021] Project Veritas released a new video today exposing CNN Director Charlie Chester, who admitted that his network engaged in propaganda to benefit Biden’s candidacy during the 2020 election to the detriment of then-President Trump. Chester also said CNN has a pre-determined agenda when reporting on COVID-19 and climate change.

 

Chester went on to say that COVID-19 media coverage should be coming to an end in the near future. He added that CNN is already preparing its shift in coverage to push and promote climate change fear. 

“I think there's a COVID fatigue. So, like whenever a new story comes up, they're [CNN’s] going to latch onto it. They've already announced in our office that once the public is -- will be open to it -- we're going to start focusing mainly on climate,” Chester said.

Chester: “It's going to be our [CNN’s] focus. Like our focus was to get Trump out of office, right? Without saying it, that's what it was, right? So, our next thing is going to be climate change awareness.”

 

https://www.projectveritas.com/news/part-1-cnn-director-admits-network-engaged-in-propaganda-to-remove-trump/

We’re aligned then.  I gritted my teeth all spring and summer and fall to be a part

of that too.  Good riddance.

[TBoneTX 45,918]

12 hours ago, laylalex said:

I'd even take the Federalist.

Quick -- put LL ma'am to bed with strong fever-medication!  

[seekingthetruth 1,248]

7 hours ago, laylalex said:

They make mistakes, and sometimes they correct them promptly, sometimes belatedly, and sometimes not at all.

There is a big difference between making a mistake and outright lying to make a story fit an agenda.

[Dashinka 24,732]

7 hours ago, laylalex said:

Did I say I rely on the NYT or CNN out of hand? No. They make mistakes, and sometimes they correct them promptly, sometimes belatedly, and sometimes not at all. What is important is whether the claims in the articles can be substantiated. This is why you hear NBC saying things like "we have independently verified the allegations made in the Post's reporting" or USA Today saying "USA Today has not been able to verify the claims made in the AP report." You want more than one source. Look to the sources -- do they line up? What are the differences? Are those differences important or trivial? Is a story developing and subject to change? Lots of questions to ask, and it's always good to ask lots of questions of what you consume as media.

They (the MSM) correct mistakes?   

[B_J 2,752]

15 hours ago, laylalex said:

It is not the mainstream media that are the only parties that are guilty of this -- I think the danger comes in when people start saying "the MSM is slanted" which implies that sources outside the mainstream media are somehow more reliable. This quite patently isn't the case. 

This right here.  That's one of the biggest problems in our country right now.

 

The MSM media is definitely slanted, which caused an explosion of "other" media.  These "other" sources are just as slanted but usually in a different direction.  We've become a country where people just get their news from whichever source gives them the slant they prefer.  That's not good for the country at all.

[Steeleballz 7,550]

On 4/19/2021 at 7:37 AM, Nature Boy 2.0 said:

All great except he is not some "low level employee"

 

  Actually he was. It took 2s to search what his actual job responsibilities were.

[Steeleballz 7,550]

15 hours ago, seekingthetruth said:

There is a big difference between making a mistake and outright lying to make a story fit an agenda.

 

    Like the election fraud coverage on FOX? 

[laylalex 7,300]

55 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

    Like the election fraud coverage on FOX? 

I like the all caps, which seems fitting for a very shouty network.

[Dashinka 24,732]

9 hours ago, Steeleballz said:

 

    Like the election fraud coverage on FOX? 

A Whataboutism?